Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Discrimination is not discriminatory

A follow-up to my earlier piece on a posturing Jackson (NY) official who proposed an English-only law for his town even though he conceded local circumstances didn't really necessitate one.

In a Post-Star article, he denied that the law was discriminatory. "That is so far from the intent of this law, it's ludicrous," he said.

An English-only law is BY DEFINITION discriminatory against non-English speakers. The description -only is inherently discriminatory. If he wants to argue that it's justified discrimination, even if it's much ado about nothing, so be it. But don't deny what it is.

If this official has such a poor understanding of the meaning of basic English words, perhaps he's not the best person to dictate how and when others use the language. Maybe he should learn English before he demands others do so.

No comments: